Mercer v Craven Grain Storage Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Templeman,Lord Goff of Chieveley,Lord Browne-wilkinson,Lord Mustill,Lord Lloyd |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1994 |
| Date | 17 March 1994 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords.
Lord Templeman, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Lloyd.
Edward Bannister QC and Mark Sutton (instructed by Blake Lapthorne) for the appellants.
M Moore-Bick QC and Richard King (instructed by T A Matthews) for the respondents.
Summary judgment — Bailment — Conversion — Grain stored by farmers' co-operative — Grower sought return of wheat — Insufficient wheat in store to satisfy demand — Damages sought for failure to deliver balance of grain — Whether summary judgment available to grower — Whether storage co-operative entitled to leave to defend action — Rules of the Supreme Court, O. 14.
This was an appeal by a farmers' co-operative (“the storage society”) against a decision of the Court of Appeal that growers were entitled to summary judgment under RSC, 0.14 in respect of their claim for damages for the failure of the storage society to redeliver the balance of wheat the growers had deposited with the society.
By a storage agreement of July 1987 the storage society, a farmers' co-operative, agreed to store the growers' grain for ten years. Each member of the society signed a similar agreement. On receipt by the society, the grain of one member was intermixed with grain of the same grade contributed by other members, and some from depositors who were not members. The commingled mass was continually drawn upon and replenished. Each member was given a receipt showing the weight and grade deposited from time to time by that member. Under the agreement the growers delivered wheat to the society between July and September 1990. In July 1991 the growers' demand for the return of their wheat was only partially met by the society. The growers claimed damages for failure to redeliver the balance in the sum of £300,835, the value of their wheat in July 1991. They sought summary judgment under RSC, O. 14.
The storage society sought leave to defend the action on the ground that the growers had lost title to their wheat. Alternatively, the growers had entered into marketing agreements with another company, “the marketing society”, and the wheat had been withdrawn on the instructions of the marketing society with which the storage society was entitled to comply. The High Court had ordered summary judgment, upheld by the Court of Appeal. The storage society appealed.
Held, allowing the storage society's appeal (by a majority):
1. The storage society had no arguable defence to the growers' claim on the basis of proprietary rights.
2. (Per Lord Templeman, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Mustill) The contractual issues raised by the storage society made the claim unsuitable for summary judgment. The issues between the parties required to be decided at trial in the light of all the facts and relevant authorities.
3. (Per Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Lloyd dissenting) The courts below were fully justified, on the issues before them, in refusing the storage society leave to defend the action.
Lord Templeman: In these 0. 14 proceedings, the courts below relied mainly on the proprietary rights of the parties; in considering whether summary judgment is appropriate, the contractual rights of the parties must also be considered.
The plaintiffs are growers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc. (formerly Metro Bunkering and Trading Co) [QBD (Comm)]
...Bank LtdELR [1950] AC 24. MacMillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust (No. 3)WLR [1996] 1 WLR 387. Mercer v Craven Grain Storage Ltd [1994] CLC 328. Nelson v Brown, Doty & Co (1880) 44 Iowa 555. North Western Bank v Poynter, Son & MacDonaldsELR [1895] AC 56. Oatway, ReELR [1903] 2 Ch 356. ......
-
Commingled Oil and Gas – Why allocation matters
...and any such goods to which title has passed to the buyer. This is supported by the House of Lords in Mercer v. Craven Grain Storage Ltd [1994] CLC 328 (HL). Here, the sellers of wheat brought an action for damages against the purchaser for the failure to re-deliver the wheat in question. O......